Posted on 12/01/2011 5:25:19 PM PST by BigDaddyTX
Mark Bradford, president of the school board, generated some tension when he discussed the districts plans for standards-based grading at the sixth-grade level.
And teachers who may not like it, he suggested, essentially would have a choice to make just as people decide where they want to live, or where they might choose to work.
Once the decision is made on how were going to do grading in this school district," he said, then thats the way its going to be.
Kim Beeler, a parent from Southwest who has been critical of standards-based grading in middle school, quickly stood up and accused Bradford of bullying the district by suggesting that teachers could choose to work here.
Its not fair, said Beeler, who referred to 30 teachers having signed a letter opposing the grading system for sixth-graders. Theres a real disconnect with the teachers. This is our town, and our schools that we pay money for. Its really frustrating to hear that.
Bradford stood his ground: Im just saying: When the decision is made about which way were going to go, if you want to work here, thats how you have to do it.
Beeler described Bradfords attitude as insulting, especially considering that the district didnt schedule any teachers opposed to the system as speakers during the forum.
Bradford assured Beeler and others that his thoughts reflected a simple reality.
We have to move on, he said. We could have teachers from both sides here, (and) its not going to change anything. But a decision has got to be made, if youre a teacher, on what were going to do so we can move on.
(Excerpt) Read more at 2.ljworld.com ...
Round Rock, TX was in a very similar situation this year and very recently put an end to the implementation of SBG in both middle school and high school. http://roundrockisd.org/index.aspx?recordid=2606&page=3400
Ive been trying to learn about SBG recently and have researched information on two of the main experts Ive seen referenced, Robert J. Marzano and Ken OConnor.
SBG specifically separates behavior from teaching/learning of standards in order to better determine the students actual knowledge of the standards. The argument is that a student who received an F in Chemistry could actually know the subject but has been penalized for behavior issues that resulted in the lower grade. Likewise a student could have an A in that class and not know the subject but received enough extra credit (their favorite example is extra credit for bringing tissue boxes) to bring their grade up to an A.
I found this web seminar by OConnor that describes 15 Fixes for Broken Grades http://www.assessmentinst.com/15-fixes-for-broken-grades/ items 1-6 are as follows:
1) Don't include student behaviors (effort, participation, adherence to class rules, etc) in grades; include only achievement.
2) Don't reduce marks on "work" submitted late; provide support for the learner.
3) Don't give points for extra credit or use bonus points; seek only evidence that more work has resulted in a higher level of achievement.
4) Don't punish academic dishonesty with reduced grades; apply other consequences and reassess to determine actual level of achievement.
5) Don't consider attendance in grade determination; report absences separately.
6) Don't include group scores in grades; use only individual achievement evidence.
In response to number 4: If the work is copied or plagiarized, how does one reassess the work to determine actual level of achievement? The achievement is not the students. The achievement belongs to someone else, does it not?
#4 is a bad idea. real bad.
Re-do’s and don’t count zero’s...
From: Marzano Teleconference October 9, 2009 David Yanoski
http://asdsbar.wikispaces.com/
“Zeros on assignments: If you give a zero on an assignment because the student did not do it, then it generates inaccurate data. This process is intended to measure student learning. When a zero is given for a missed assignment, the zero is not assessing learning. Assess responsibility in a different way life skills, work habits. Dont penalize kids by giving the zeros for not doing their work.”
How about we just dump the entire Department of Education and the public school system in its liberal communist psychobabble politically correct entirety, give out vouchers and make laws forbidding charging more than the vouchers per grade, and let the free market get rid of the millions of worthess, screaming, mind-controlled, rock-stupid political cronies called "public school teachers." And oh yeah - hang ALL of the public school administrators first.
It’s got to be pure accident that any kid graduates from public school that is not functionally ignorant.
The thing fundamentally wrong about this is that it gives the kid all the power and forces the teacher to work around misbehaving and deliberately abusing-the-system students.
Part of the grade is getting assignments done when they are due. Learning certain things in a certain amount of time. Because these are skills that you need to do work and get tasks done in certain periods of time. Showing up to class or work on time when expected. Doing work or studying during designated times.
It’s putting the insane in charge of the asylum. Kids needs an external authority that gives structure. Not this crap.
Any math experts out here? If so, I need help understanding this.
SBG and Marzano depend on the Power Law as a non-linear function that emphasizes trending versus averaging because averaging isnt fair. The average of scores penalizes the student for not knowing anything at the beginning of a unit. The average score will artificially drag down a students score.
Power function:
RT = aP-b + c Exponential function:
RT = ae-b(P-1) + c Where
RT = Trial Completion TimeP = Trial Number, starting from 1 (for exponential functions the P-1 argument is used)a, b, and c, are constants
I find it very interesting that the Power Law (law as in a proven constant i.e. Newtons law ) itself is called into question due to the use of AVERAGING.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_Law_of_Practice
“However, subsequent research by Heathcote, Brown, and Mewhort (2000) suggests that the power function observed in learning curves that are averaged across participants is an artifact of aggregation. Heathcote et al. suggest that individual-level data is better fit by an exponential function and the authors demonstrate that the multiple exponential curves will average to produce a curve that is misleadingly well fit by a power function.”
www.newcl.org/publications/20thcentury/powerlaw.pdf
“The power function is treated as the law relating response time to practice trials. However, the evidence for a power law is flawed, because it is based on averaged data.”
Meaning, apply consequences for the dishonesty, and then MAKE HIM DO THE WORK OVER, or do another assignment of comparable difficulty, (supervised to ensure he gets no outside help) to see how HIS work is.
I do see #4 as a tool to drill down and determine the students actual level of understanding of the topic but there is no follow up on the “other consequences”. This works for little kids but at what point to you start preparing them for the grown-up world?
Cheating should reduce the grades not just make them do it over.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.